F 273 

. R38 
Copy 1 



REMARKS 



UPON 



THE CONTROVERSY 



BETWEEN 



MASSACHUSETTS AND SOUTH CAROLINA. 



REMARKS 



UPON THE CONTROVERSY 



BETWEEN THE 



COMMONWEALTH OP MASSACHUSETTS 



AND THE 



STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA. 



BY A, FRIEND TO THE UNION. 



BOSTON: 
WM. CROSBY & H. P. NICHOLS, 

118 Washington Street. 

1845. 






F"zl3 



printed by andrews!, p^enti's and sttdley. 
devonshi^e'stkket. 



ADVERTISEMENT. 



It is very probable that the remarks contained in the following 
pages will not please either of the two great parties which divide 
this Commonwealth, — and that, like the bat in the fable, when 
the beasts and birds went to war, they will be rejected by both 
sides, as belonging to neither. They are submitted to the pub- 
lic, however, at the suggestion of a few individuals, who feel a 
deeper interest in the preservation of the Union than in the suc- 
cess of party or sectarian measures. 

BOSTON, January 25, 1845. 



REMARKS. 



" 'T will be recorded for a precedent, 
And many an error, by the same example, 
Will rush into the state." 

This is, truly, an age of excitement. If we may judge from 
appearances, society seems to be in a fair way to illustrate the 
truth of the lunatic's remark, " that it is the majority of mankind 
who are mad, and that they have taken the only few rational 
men among them and shut them up in Bedlam." Religion and 
morals, literature, politics and trade are all on the same high- 
pressure principle. The man who stops on his way to reflect, 
is run over by the crowd ; and if he ventures to inquire to what 
point the throng is directing its mad speed, he is pronounced to 
be "behind the age," and is left to pursue his journey alone. 
Nothing preserves its temperate pulsations but the clock, and 
because man cannot hasten its tardy gait he seeks his indemnity 
by attempting to anticipate it. Evil must necessarily come of 
this universal haste. But in most cases the evil will cure itself. 
Religion and morals will recover from the hasty theories which 
now tarnish their brightness ; literature will return to her pure 
fountains ; trade will retire within its proper banks and chan- 
nels, but it is much to be feared that the political excitements of 
the day will not so readily and quietly seek their proper level. 

It becomes the duty, then, of every man to do all he can to 
allay this preternatural excitement. He is no friend to his coun- 
try who would pour oil rather than water upon its flames. There 
is more to be feared from doing too much than too little, at the 
present moment. He who possesses the coolest brain and most 
phlegmatic temperament is the safest counsellor in times like 
these. There has been no period since we became a nation, 
when so many exciting questions have been before the public. 



Texas and Oregon, Slavery, and a host of less threatening evils, 
seem to have gathered themselves into a cloud, and hang upon 
the horizon with a portentousness and gloom that may well star- 
tle the stoutest heart from its security. 

But in this, as in most other cases, man's safety, in a great 
degree, depends upon his prudence. Even in the convulsions of 
the natural world, he may, in some measure, guard himself 
against their violence ; the traveller, amidst the Alps, is aware 
that a mere loud word may detach the avalanche that is suspend- 
ed above his head, and bring it down in a mass to crush him ; 
but in those of the moral world, his fate depends more especially 
upon himself. 

The object of these remarks is not to counsel timidity, but 
prudence ; not to recommend a cowardly shrinking from im- 
pending dangers, but firmness and moderation, rather than rash- 
ness and violence. " The wise man forseeth the evil and avoid- 
eth it, but the fool passeth on and is punished." 

There are two questions now before the public which, though 
important in themselves, may be rendered much more so by the 
manner in which they are treated. We refer to the act of the 
legislature of South Carolina subjecting the free black to impris- 
onment ; and the treatment which the agent of Massachusetts 
received from the legislature of South Carolina, in his late mis- 
sion. These questions derive much of the difficulty that attends 
them, from their incidental connexion with the exciting subject 
of Slavery. Had the question between the two States been taken 
upon any other issue than that of domestic Slavery, it might have 
been adjusted without bitterness or strong individual feeling. As 
it is, the spark has unhappily fallen into the only mine that can 
produce a general explosion ; and when we add to this the fact, 
that there are many among us who would exult at the devasta- 
tion which such an explosion might create, we may well see the 
importance of treading warily a path so hemmed in with dangers. 

That there will be many attempts to influence public opinion 
in this State, and through that to direct the course of the legis- 
lature, no one can doubt. An attempt of this kind has already 
been made in a publication entitled " An Appeal to the People 
of Massachusetts, on the Texas Question," in which a conven- 
tion of the people is loudly called for, to take into consideration 
that question, and also "the conduct of the citizens of Charles- 
ton, and the government of South Carolina, towards the agent 
of Massachusetts, in his late mission." 

It is gratifying to perceive that, as yet, the public mind is but 
little disturbed by this unlucky controversy ; that our newspa- 
pers, almost without an exception, have pursued a calm and tem- 
perate course, and that the community have determined to leave 
to the legislature the difficult task of setting the two States free 



from the awkward entanglement in which they are, at present, 
held. From the legislature first arose the difficulty, and to it 
we have a right to look for relief; how this is to be accomplish- 
ed, is a question more easily asked than answered ; — but one 
thing is clear, that the interference of the people can only serve 
to embarrass, rather than remedy the difficulty. It is to be 
hoped that the measures of the legislature upon this subject, 
whatever they may be, will be adopted without party or sectional 
feelings; — that every member will cast off, at the very door of 
the hall of legislation, his prejudices and private interests; and 
that the questions, which may arise, will be discussed with such 
a regard to their delicacy as well as importance, as will secure 
not only the confidence of our own community, but the respect 
of the State with which we have been thus unfortunately brought 
in collision. We trust it will not be forgotten that we are not 
demanding satisfaction for an alleged affront received from a for- 
eign nation, but simply arranging a domestic difficulty that has 
arisen around our own fireside. 

It is certainly true that these questions involve much difficulty 
in their arrangement. Whilst on the one hand they embrace an 
important question of constitutional law, on the other they in- 
volve the domestic peace and safety of a large portion of our 
country. On the one side stands the cold and abstract legal 
question, has the Constitution been violated? on the other, the 
thrilling inquiry, shall some of the fairest portions of our coun- 
try be laid in ashes, and its citizens become the victims of the 
domestic assassin and incendiary 1 

However clear and plain may be the language of the Consti- 
tution, it must be manifest that the different parties to it, so far 
as it regards its implied provisions, will, in many cases, disagree 
in its construction ; this has been the case ever since its adopt- 
ion, and will be so till it ends. It is not in the power of man to 
provide for all the contingencies and emergencies that may arise 
under the most skillfully and cautiously constructed legal instru- 
ment. The changing conduct of man, and the lapse of years, 
bring up so many strange combinations of circumstances, that 
human foresight is unable to look so far down the vista of futur- 
ity as to anticipate any great proportion of its coming events. 
Our most honest and intelligent statesmen have differed upon 
many of the important questions that have already arisen ; — 
nay, have held different opinions upon the same questions at 
different times. In support of this position, if it needs any sup- 
port, it is only necessary to refer to the question of the constitu- 
tionality of a national bank ; of the embargo which preceded the 
war of 1812 ; of the law establishing a tariff for protection, and 
the recent bankrupt law. The framers of our Constitution did 
all that men could do who were not gifted with the spirit of 



8 



prophecy, and the wonder is that they saw so far into futurity, 
rather than that their political vision extended no farther. Great 
and exciting questions must be continually arising ; extensive as 
our country is, — running through so many degrees of latitude, 
— embracing such various climates, and consequently so diver- 
sified in manners and pursuits, perfect harmony, at all times, 
cannot be rationally expected. Interests must clash — different 
pursuits must necessarily conflict — the policy of the one part 
cannot always coincide with that of the other ; and it is only by 
new modifications of the Constitution, and constant forbearance, 
that the good of the whole can be secured. 

But this state of things does not necessarily militate with the 
duration of our Republic. If its citizens are true to themselves 
and the rich legacy bequeathed to them by their ancestors, these 
temporary obstructions may be removed as they arise, and the 
world yet see the great problem solved, whether man is capa- 
ble of governing himself. It is probably the last chance that will 
ever be offered for its solution should the experiment in our own 
country prove unsuccessful. In case of such a failure even the 
Utopian would surrender up his last hope, and the most enthusi- 
astic believer in the capacity of man for self-government would 
retire in despair. We have begun the experiment under circum- 
stances more favorable to a successful result than any nation 
ever enjoyed before, or can hope for hereafter ; and if this oppor- 
tunity is lost — all is lost. Can it, then, be too often repeated or 
too strongly impressed upon the minds of those to whom the free 
institutions of our country are dear, that, in all cases of domes- 
tic discord, they are bound to proceed cautiously and prudent- 
ly ? that the appeal to strife and force in such cases, is the appeal 
of the madman to the torch and the firebrand? Should he not be 
considered as worse than a traitor ivithin the walls, who would 
attempt to stir up the spirit of resentment among brothers 1 

But to return to the questions more immediately before us, and 
we will begin with the one which is of the least real importance. 
Whatever may have been the treatment received by the agent 
of this State from the legislature of South Carolina, the result of 
his mission has not been in substance, different from that which 
every reflecting man, in any degree acquainted with the feelings 
of the South, anticipated. Had he possessed the spirit of mar- 
tyrdom, he could not have courted a more favorable opportunity 
to secure its crown. Whatever the law of the case may be, the 
practical result might have been easily foreseen. It is true the 
anticipation of such a result does not justify it ; but it brings 
strongly in question the propriety, on the part of the legislature 
of this State, of adopting a form of proceeding, the consequences 
of which promised to be as disastrous as these have proved to be. 
There were, surely, other and less offensive modes of testing the 



rights of the free black citizen of this State, supposing them to 
have been violated by the laws of South Carolina, then by send- 
ing an authorized agent to reside within her borders. The hum- 
blest attorney at her bar, or the poorest master of a coasting ves- 
sel from which the prisoner might have been taken, was as com- 
petent to " raise a question of law" by a writ of habeas corpus, 
or an action of trespass and false imprisonment, as the agent of 
Massachusetts, and with much better prospect of success. There 
were no courts open to the agent of Massachusetts that were not 
equally so to the meanest of her citizens. The agent of the 
State, armed with a copy of the act of the legislature, possessed 
no more power to enforce the rights of an imprisoned citizen 
than any other man in Massachusetts. If funds were wanted, 
for the purpose of bringing the question before the Courts of the 
United States, they might have been furnished without the pro- 
voking display of an embassy to supply them. 

But why, we would ask, this interference, on the part of the 
State, in this particular class of cases? Is there any more rea- 
son for her interesting herself in the wrongful imprisonment of a 
black citizen, than there would be in that of a white one who was 
suffering imprisonment in the same, or any other State, under an 
unconstitutional law, or no law at all ? Ought not the aggrieved 
party, whether white or black, to be left to pursue his remedy 
under the laws of his country ; and are not these laws, in all 
cases, sufficient for the purpose ? 

We are not disposed to contend that the free black, who pays 
taxes and contributes towards the support of the government un- 
der which he lives, is not a citizen of the United States, within 
a fair interpretation of the Constitution. If he is free, we can 
see no clause in that instrument which .makes a distinction aris- 
ing from color merely, though we are aware that this doctrine 
has been questioned in some of the free States. But admitting 
that he is so, there seems to be no good reason why a special pro- 
vision should be made for his security, any more than for that of 
the white man. Every State is liable to pass a law which is, or 
may be supposed to be in violation of the Constitution of the 
United States. There are two writs of error now pending in the 
Supreme Court at Washington, which are brought to reverse cer- 
tain judgments of the Courts of Massachusetts, on the alleged 
ground that the laws under which these judgments were rendered, 
are unconstitutional. Scarcely a session of the Supreme Court 
is held at Washington, in which some question does not come 
before that Court touching the constitutionality of some law of a 
sister State. In all such cases the citizens of another State com- 
ing within the jurisdiction of the State passing such law are ex- 
posed to its operation, and may suffer under it. What is the remedy 
in such an event? If the Courts of the State sustain the law, an 



10 



ample remedy is furnished to the injured party by an application 
to the Courts of the United States. Has it ever been doubted 
that this is an ample remedy? Have we been all this time living 
in a state of legal destitution without knowing it? Will it be de- 
nied that the black man, as well as the white, who is taken from 
his vessel, by force of an unconstitutional law and imprisoned, 
has an ample remedy if he, or his friends in his behalf, choose 
to resort to the Courts of the United States for indemnity against 
the injury he has sustained by the violation of his personal liberty ? 
If any one doubts it, we refer him to the Constitution of the United 
States, (Art. 3d. Sec. 2.) It is certainly, then, a new arrangement 
to provide a public agent for such an emergency. Is it, then, 
surprising that such a proceeding should be construed into an in- 
tentional affront by the State whose municipal regulations such 
an agent is authorized to superintend? 

Whether the law by which South Carolina claims the right to 
imprison the free black who enters her territories upon his lawful 
business is, or is not unconstitutional, we do not stop to inquire. 
That is a question which is to be settled by the highest tribunal 
of the country, and it is fortunate that neither the Courts of 
Massachusetts nor South Carolina have any authority to inter- 
fere in it. 

We are willing to take it for granted that the law is in viola- 
tion of the letter of the Constitution. But supposing the law, 
abstractly considered, and taken independently of all its cir- 
cumstances, is unconstitutional, cannot such a state of things 
exist as would render such a law justifiable, or at least excusa- 
ble? The law so much complained of, is one that, in effect, 
merely suspends the rights of the free black until the necessity 
for enacting it shall have passed away. Such laws are not the 
unheard of monsters that they are represented to be. The Con- 
stitution of Massachusetts, itself, recognizes the propriety and 
necessity of suspending the rights of the citizen when the emer- 
gency of the case requires it ; and expressly confers upon the 
legislature the power of passing laws for that purpose. In 
Part First, Art. 20th, of the Constitution of Massachusetts, is 
the following provision : " The power of suspending the laws, 
or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by 
the legislature, or by authority derived from it, to be exercised 
in such particular cases only as the legislature shall expressly 
provide for." 

It may, perhaps, be said that this Article of the Constitution 
provides for the suspension of the laws of Massachusetts as to 
her own citizens, but not for the suspension of the rights of the 
citizens of other States, derived from the Constitution of the 
United States. In answer to this we reply that there is no such 
limitation in its terms — that if it does not apply to citizens of 



11 



other States it is a mere nullity ; for any emergency that would 
render it justifiable to suspend the laws as to her own citizens, 
would make it requisite to do so as to the citizens of other 
States, or Massachusetts would exhibit this strange state of 
things — her laws suspended as to her own citizens, and in full 
force as to the citizens of other States who might happen to be 
within her jurisdiction; thus giving greater "privileges and 
immunities" to the citizens of other States than to her own ! 
This we presume the Constitution of the United States never 
could intend. Its language is this, "The citizens of each State 
shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in 
the several States." By this we understand that, when any 
citizen of any of the United States comes within the jurisdiction 
of any particular State, he is entitled to all the privileges and im- 
munties of the citizens of that State — and no more; and if 
the laws can be suspended as to them, they can be as to him also. 
He has no peculiar privileges as a citizen of another State, but 
is merely entitled to all those privileges which the citizens of 
the State enjoy within which he may happen to be — the Con- 
stitution of the United States making, by the clause above cited, 
a citizen of one State a citizen of every State in the Union. It 
would follow then, as a matter of course, that if he is entitled to 
all the privileges and immunities of the citizens of any particular 
State, that he is subject to all the disabilities and penalties also 
that the laws of such State might impose or inflict. To contend 
that he is not subject to such disabilities and penalties would be 
giving him not only " all the privileges and immunities" of its 
citizens, but more and greater privileges. 

If, then, the legislature of Massachusetts has a right to sus- 
pend her laws as to her own citizens, and also at the same time 
as to the citizens of other States, because her own safety requires 
it, has she not, as a principle following from these premises, a 
right to suspend her laws as to the citizens of other States, 
although at the same time she may not have suspended them as 
to her own citizens — the exigency of the case not requiring that 
they should be suspended as to her own citizens, but merely 
as to those of other States? On what principle is it that this 
right to suspend the laws is founded ? Upon the emergency of 
the case — clearly. If so, is not the suspension to be co-exten- 
sive with the emergency, and nothing more 1 Are her laws to 
be suspended as to her own citizens when the necessity of the 
case does not require it in order to embrace, constitutionally, 
the citizens of other States 1 In which event would the greatest 
injury be done to the cause of freedom generally, by suspending 
the laws as to her own citizens and those of other States, when 
the necessity of the case only required that they should be sus- 
pended as to the citizens of other States, or by suspending them 



12 



as to the citizens of other States only 1 Does not the greater in 
this instance embrace the less ? Would not the citizens of the 
particular State have reason to complain that the laws were sus- 
pended unnecessarily as to them, when suspending them as to 
the citizens of other States would remedy the whole evil ? Is 
not that course always to be taken, in an emergency, that will 
occasion the least suffering and produce the least evil ? 

Does not this Article of the Constitution of Massachusetts au- 
thorize her legislature to do " in particular cases," all that the 
legislature of South Carolina has done " in the particular case" 
complained of 1 Suppose the "particular case" contemplated 
by the Constitution of Massachusetts should arise, and her legis- 
lature should see fit to suspend the operation of a particular law 
because the safety of her citizens required it, would the citizen 
of another State, who came voluntarily into her territory, know- 
ing the suspension of such law, have any just reason to complain 
if he was subjected to the penalties and disabilities attending 
such a suspension of the law? Every man who knows anything 
of the construction of civilized society, knows that such power 
must be possessed by every government ; and that cases will 
arise in which it must be exercised. A government that did not 
possess this power would be good for nothing ; it would crumble 
into pieces by its own weakness. This principle lies at the 
very foundation of society, and can be overthrown only by the 
destruction of society itself. The oldest plea on record is the 
"plea of necessity." Who will undertake to state the origin of 
that ancient maxim that " necessity knows no law," whose date 
is so remote that it extends not only beyond the age of history, 
but even that of fable ? 

To illustrate the propriety of exercising such a power, let us 
take for example the recent unhappy controversy between the 
State of Rhode Island and a portion of her citizens. We do 
not mean to give an opinion upon the merits or demerits of that 
controversy. We take it as an example which lies at our very 
door, and, as we think, illustrating the case of necessity which 
we have before supposed. A civil war had actually broken out 
between the government of that State, or those claiming to be 
so, and a large number of her citizens — both parties were in 
arms — both claiming the right of government, and each charg- 
ing the other with treason. It was impossible such an alarming 
state of things should fail to excite the most intense interest in 
every other State in the Union, but particularly in those States 
immediately bordering upon her territory. In this case, as in 
most others, there were different opinions as to which party had 
the right side of the contest. The excitement was not confined 
within the limits of the State of Rhode Island. Its flames had 
swept across its borders, and as might have been expected, 



13 



had wrapped some of the neighboring villages of Massachusetts 
in almost as intense a conflagration. Among those who were 
thus adjacent to this scene of civil war, there were many who 
favored the popular side of the question, and believed the 
Government of the State to be usurpers, and that the cause 
of the people was that of freedom. Nay, some of those who 
were in arms against the Government were citizens of other 
States, who had volunteered in the cause. Mass meetings were 
held in Boston, and clam-bakes in other parts of Massachusetts, 
at which resolutions were passed, encouraging the people of 
Rhode Island, and expressing sympathy for their wrongs. We 
mention these circumstances merely to show the relative position 
of the two parties in Rhode Island. Did not this state of things 
present a case which required that Rhode Island should look out 
for her own safety ? With every reason to fear that the strong 
sympathy of those on her borders would aid and encourage, what 
she considered, her rebellious citizens* would it have been un- 
constitutional, or at any rate unjustifiable, if she had passed a 
law forbidding the entrance into her territory of the citizens of 
those unfriendly districts ? After due notice of the enactment 
of such a law, had any prohibited person entered her territory in 
defiance of it, and consequently been imprisoned until he had 
pledged himself to depart, would any man insist that, in such an 
emergency, he had any reason to complain of a violation of his 
rights as a citizen, because, by a fair construction of the Con- 
stitution of the United States, he who is a citizen of one State 
is so of all ? Is this cold reasoning to control the horrors of 
civil war? Is madness to rule under the garb of reason? Is 
man, is nature to yield to circumstances, and laio never ? Is 
there a nation whose history does not show periods of peril dur- 
ing which the regular course of law was not, and could not be 
maintained? It has been the good fortune of our country to be 
thus far exempted, in a great degree, from those alarming crises 
which have shaken the laws of other countries to their founda- 
tion. But we are not to suppose that we have taken a bond of 
fate, and that our history is to be free from all those foul blots 
that stain the records of those who have gone before us. The 
events in the history of Rhode Island, to which we have alluded, 
stand out too prominently in our annals to allow us to cherish a 
hope so flattering. The disgusting details of the Philadelphia 
riots are yet too loudly ringing in our ears, to permit us to doubt 
that our Republic nourishes in its bosom the same materials of 
disorganization that have overthrown other Republics. 

We have instanced in the late events of Rhode Island an 

emergency, in which we think no man, however zealous he may 

be in the support of law, will hesitate to say that any measures 

would have been justifiable which the necessity of the case might 

2 



14 



have required to save the lives and property of her citizens 
from destruction, and her city and villages from sack and confla- 
gration. Let us continue the parallel a little farther, and ask 
what would probably have been her conduct had the State of 
Massachusetts, in the midst of her troubles, gravely sent an agent 
into her territory, to " raise a question of law " in behalf of some 
of its citizens, who had set her warning at defiance, and were in 
consequence suffering the imprisonment which had been foretold 
to them ? If she had not dismissed him without a very ceremo- 
nious leave-taking, she is not the energetic and spirited little 
State we have supposed her to be. 

It would be easy to multiply instances in which the general 
principles of law must, in the nature of things, yield to the neces- 
sity of the case. But this doctrine, that abstract principles must 
submit to particular modifications, is not confined to cases of ex- 
treme emergency only. Even the Board of Health of our city, 
or of the smallest village, possess the power of controlling the 
liberty of the citizen when the public good requires it. The 
whole body of the quarantine laws, as established by the legisla- 
ture, is based upon this principle. A vessel arrives from a port 
in a neighboring State, say Charleston in South Carolina, in 
which an epidemic, the yellow fever, for example, is raging; she 
arrives at the quarantine ground — within the waters of the 
State of Massachusetts ; she is detained there with her crew and 
passengers, many or all of them perhaps citizens of other States, 
until the Board of Health think it safe for the community that 
she should be allowed to approach our wharves, and her crew 
and passengers be permitted to mingle with our citizens. And 
even more than this, to use the language of the Statute, the Board 
of Health " may cause all persons arriving in, or going on board 
of such infected vessel, or handling such infected cargo, to be 
removed to any hospital under the care of said Board of Health, 
there to remain under their orders." This is imprisonment — not 
exactly that of stone walls, but in many instances almost as se- 
vere. Is not the sufferer in this case restrained of his liberty ? 
Has he not a right, by the Constitution, to enter the harbor ? 
He has, certainly, but subject nevertheless to the paramount 
right of the community that he shall not exercise that right to 
the destruction of that community. 

This, when viewed correctly, is no act of oppression. The 
good of the whole is the good of all the parts. The security of 
the individual is based upon the security of the whole community. 
There is not an intelligent man in the country who does not 
admit the correctness of this principle, and who does not see that 
his own safety rests upon it. There may be cases, like that now 
in dispute with South Carolina, where other matters may have 
so minorled themselves as to distract the vision, for a moment, 



15 



but a little reflection will convince us that all these matters are 
merely adventitious ; and that the principle involved in that case 
is as simple and incontrovertible as in any of the cases we have 
just stated. Strip it of the exciting subject of Slavery, turn 
the black man into a white one, let it be the case of a vessel 
whose master has violated the quarantine regulations of the city 
of Charleston, and its romance disappears at once ; sentimen- 
tality will dry its eyes, and the knife which has been so nearly 
drawn to be sheathed in the bosom of friends and brothers, will 
be thrown aside with shame and regret. 

We readily admit the sacred character of personal liberty. 
We should regret to have it thought that we are disposed to treat 
it lightly. Next to life it is regarded by the law as the most 
important of all earthly blessings. But even in regard to that 
highest blessing, human life, the law recognizes the plea of 
necessity. There is no law so inflexible as that which prohibits 
the taking of human life. It is the law of God and man. But 
he must be ignorant of the first principles of natural as well as 
civil law, who is not aware that even this law, uttered at first in 
thunder from Mount Sinai, and repeated by man in every age of 
civilization, is not without its exceptions. Our law books are 
filled, and our newspapers teem with cases of justifiable homi- 
cide. The duty of man to preserve his own life is even greater, 
in the eye of the law, than that of preserving the life of another. 
In that terrible class of cases which sometimes arise in wrecks 
at sea, it has been held lawful to throw overboard a part of the 
wretched survivors who have sought their safety in the ship's 
boats, when their number has been greater than the security of 
the boat would allow ; and to take even the life of some unhappy 
victim upon whom the lot might fall, when no other means of 
sustaining the lives of the survivors can be found ! — a horrible 
and disgusting necessity which makes all other acts of self-pre- 
servation sink into absolute insignificance before it ! Nor do the 
moralist and jurist differ on this point. It is recognized as a 
sound principle by writers upon moral philosophy, that, if two 
are afloat upon a plank which is able to support but one, either 
has a right to push the other from his seat, as an act of self-pre- 
servation ! Need we go any farther in our elucidation of the 
rights which arise from that stern and inflexible tyrant — neces- 
sity ? Does the imprisonment of a free negro for a few days, in 
comfortable apartments, when the object of such imprisonment is 
the prevention of a servile war, bear any comparison with the 
cases we have just enumerated ? 

Admitting, then, for the present, that the law of South Caro- 
lina imprisoning every free black who enters her territory, tf 
against the letter of the Constitution, we think we have shown 
that an emergency might arise that would render such an act 



16 



justifiable upon the principle of self-preservation. It would seem, 
then, that the only remaining question is, did such an emergency 
exist, at the time of the enactment of that law, as rendered such 
a law absolutely necessary ? 

Much might be said, we think, upon the principle, that if the 
Constitution guarantees to the slave-holding States the right to 
hold slaves, it must, of course, be inferred that it also confers 
upon them the right to pass all such laws as may be necessary 
for the quiet enjoyment of the privilege which it secures to them ; 

— that to give the right to hold slaves, without at the same time 
conferring the power to pass all such laws as might be necessary 
to keep them in proper subjection, would be little better than a 
solemn mockery, and would be giving the shadow and withholding 
the substance. But we shall confine ourselves to the simple 
proposition with which we started. Did the peculiar situation of 
the State of South Carolina render the law complained of, a 
matter of absolute necessity ? 

In order to understand this question rightly, it becomes neces- 
sary to look not only at the situation of Carolina as she is in 
and of herself, but as she stands in relation to the free States 
generally — and Massachusetts in particular. There is no doubt 
that her fears, upon the subject of slavery, have magnified her 
danger ; that she views the hostility of the free States to her 
slave-holding rights as far more general and inveterate than it 
really is ; that she has mistaken the echoed and re-echoed 
cries of a party, and that too a comparatively small one, for the 
deliberate expression of the sentiments of the whole community. 
She is not aware that the feelings of the great mass of the 
country, though averse to slavery, and particularly to its exten- 
sion, is still decidedly in favor of supporting the rights secured 
to her by the Constitution, until some plan for its extinction can 
be suggested that shall be mutually satisfactory. The great body 
of the people of the North, though they commisserate the slave, 
know how to appreciate the embarrassing situation of the master 

— and the cry which has gone up against slavery is rather 
against the increase of the evil by adding new slave-holding 
States to the Union, than the full and perfect toleration of the 
system as it at present exists. Does not the South itself agree 
with the North in regretting the necessity of slavery? Would 
she not willingly unite with the free States in the adoption of 
any plan that would abolish the evil, if, at the same time, she 
could have justice done to herself? She has always professed 
these sentiments, and we think with perfect sincerity. We do 
not believe that there is a disposition at the North to rob her of 
her property without an indemnity. That there are some who 
consider slavery as worse than all other evils, we are aware ; 
that to such persons the horrors of a servile or a civil war are 



17 



less dreadful than the continuance of slavery, we presume ; for 
they profess to be willing to quaff their pledge against it, even in 
blood. They openly advocate a dissolution of the Union ; but 
we do not believe the number of those who thus invite evils infi- 
nitely worse than those which they would cure, is so great as to 
endanger, in the slightest degree, the tranquillity of the commu- 
nity. Their unceasing activity, their entire devotion to the 
cause, and that enthusiasm which makes all labor light, have 
given them a prominence among the sects and parties of the 
country, which their numbers could never have secured to them. 
We think it not improbable, should these remarks ever reach 
the eye of any of our Southern friends, that they will be consid- 
ered as mere declamation, or perhaps the " weak invention of 
an enemy; " but we write them in the midst of the most active 
of these partizans, whilst they are holding an " abolition fair" 
in the next street to us, and we honestly believe what we say, 
however we may have mistaken the facts. 

At the time the legislature of South Carolina passed the law 
to which we have referred, she had reason to think that it was 
necessary to adopt some decided measures for her security as it 
regarded her slave population. A crisis had arrived which ren- 
dered it important, in the view of all her citizens, without dis- 
tinction of party, that she should exclude from her limits whatever 
tended to the farther excitement of a class of her population, 
already seriously affected by the cry of " freedom to the slave," 
which was resounding from one part of the country to the other. 
Abolition tracts, many of them calling upon the slave to liberate 
himself by violence, were scattered through her State in the ut- 
most profusion. On the one side she was invaded by preachers 
of abolition of the most fanatical character, and on the other by 
the abductors of her slaves — the sense of domestic security was 
gone — the master no longer read in the face of his slave the 
love and devotion of former days — the ready smile had been 
succeeded by the frown of discontent, or the scowl of anticipated 
revenge — the merry and careless laugh, so peculiar to the black, 
which had once rung out as clear and musical as the tones of a 
bell, had given place to the low' whisper or half-muttered threat 
— the kindest treatment was no protection against domestic trea- 
son — the most indulgent master could not sit down to his table 
without the fear that poison might have been mingled with his 
food, or retire to his bed at night with the assurance that another 
sun would rise upon him — he could not leave his home for a 
day, without the dreadful apprehension that he might find his 
plantation, on his return, in ashes, and his family dispersed or 
massacred. In the midst of all this agitation the cry of abolition 
still came on, increasing in its violence. Had he friends at the 
North ? If he had, they were silent, and apparently regardless. 
2 * 



18 



It was in vain that he urged his rights under the Constitution — 
that he claimed protection under it — that he put his finger upon 
the clause that secured to him his ownership in his slaves — that 
he protested against this unfeeling interference with his most 
sacred claims. 

We admit that it was not in the power of the free States, 
within which these schemes for exciting the slave to insurrection 
were maturing, to do any act to check the increasing evil. If a 
party chose to exert itself to abolish slavery by mere moral influ- 
ence, by writing or declaiming against it, there was no law in 
the land to forbid it. The sober and prudent part of the com- 
munity might look on with regret and evil forebodings, but they 
had no power to stay the course of the torrent — neither had the 
free States the power to prevent the emissaries of abolition from 
intruding into the slave-holding States. They could pass no law 
to prohibit such enthusiasts as the Rev. Mr. Torrey and Miss 
Delia Webster from a crusade into a neighboring State, however 
they might disapprove of the mischievous tendency of such a 
measure. 

What course then remained for the State to adopt whose soil 
was overrun by such disseminators of mischief, who were sowing 
dragons' teeth that they might spring up armed men ? Every 
exertion was made by Carolina to suppress these efforts to sub- 
vert her peace and security. Her post-office was guarded for 
the purpose of excluding incendiary publications. But it will 
readily be perceived that the utmost vigilance could render this 
but a very inadequate protection. It was little better than an 
attempt to exclude the wind that blew from the Northern States, 
every breeze of which came freighted with the seeds of discord. 
But even this attempt to secure herself was complained of by the 
presses of the free States as an act of oppression. 

Notwithstanding these pacific precautions, the white emissa- 
ries of abolition, visiting Carolina under the pretence of business, 
or some other plausible pretext, still continued to scatter abroad 
the tracts of abolition societies and the records of their doings 
and speeches at their meetings, with a perseverance that set all 
efforts to restrain them at defiance. There was one apostle of 
rebellion, however, presented himself in the shape of the free 
negro of the North, who was worse than all the rest. The white 
man, from his very complexion and habits, could not obtain so 
readily an uninterrupted intercourse with the slave, or possess 
himself of his confidence, as the negro. The white man might 
betray — he could talk to the slave of freedom in the abstract 
only — the negro could illustrate it in his own person — he was 
free — free as ignorance and recklessness could make him — the 
only idea of freedom which the slave could comprehend. Not a 
vessel arrived from the North that did not, in the capacity of 



19 



cook or mariner, number among its crew one or more of these 
dark emissaries of evil. To restrain him in his intercourse with 
the black population was impossible. His " word was as good 
as his bond," literally, for neither were good for anything. Ac- 
tual confinement for the time during which his vessel remained 
in port was the only, the sole remedy. Any other mode of re- 
straint would have been as idle and useless as to have attempted 
to " fetter flame with flaxen band." Imprisonment became ab- 
solutely necessary. 

Carolina was aware that this was an important step — that it 
would be complained of by the North as all her precautionary 
measures had been, and she wisely and prudently determined 
that the act should be sanctioned by the highest authority — her 
legislature ; and the law, of which the State of Massachusetts 
now complains so loudly, was passed with the sanction and ap- 
proval of her wisest and best men. This was not a hasty pro- 
ceeding, projected and executed in the dark, to catch the un- 
wary, and lure an enemy into the toils. It was an open and 
manly warning to the whole world, that a crisis had arrived in 
her affairs that rendered it necessary that such a measure should 
be adopted. It was not like the laws of Draco, written in blood, 
or posted so high that no one could read it. It was mild ; it 
was what the emergency of the case absolutely demanded. 
There was not a master of the smallest coaster that sailed for the 
port of Charleston, ignorant as he might be of other things, who 
did not know the existence of this law. 

Under this state of things we put the question boldly and con- 
fidently to every dispassionate man of the North, what could 
Carolina have done less ? Would not Massachusetts, in a re- 
verse of circumstances, have done more? Has not the latter 
State, from the very commencement of her history, been more 
prompt than any other State to resent any infringement of her 
rights? Would the State on whose soil the first gun of the 
Revolutionary war was discharged, and the first drop of blood 
was shed, have been more forbearing, in similar circumstances, 
than Carolina? We have lived too long among her people to 
fear the reply. 

There are few States in the Union with which any misunder- 
standing is more to be regretted by Massachusetts than with 
South Carolina. She is one of the Old Thirteen, who stood 
shoulder to shoulder with us during the war of the Revolution. 
She furnished, during that period of privation and danger, her 
full quota of wise legislators, patriotic statesmen, and gallant 
officers. She suffered as much, and perhaps more, during that 
glorious struggle for independence, than any State in the Union. 
She has sent, since that time, to the councils of the nation, 
legislators of the most brilliant and splendid talents, and has 



20 



manfully redeemed, in after years, the rich promises she gave in 
the early period of her history. It is true she has not acquiesced 
so readily in the national policy of the few past years as could 
have been wished. But it is equally true that that policy has 
pressed hardly upon her, and it would seem churlish indeed to 
deny to the suffering the common privilege of complaint. If she 
has striven to throw off that policy, she has done no more, per- 
haps, than the right of self-preservation would justify ; and if the 
manner has sometimes been less prudent than it should have 
been, we think she would meet with little difficulty in finding a 
precedent among the records of her sister States. 

The present difficulty between the two States is the more painful 
from the social and friendly intercourse which has, until within 
a few years past, subsisted between their capitals. Charleston 
and Boston have maintained a closer and more friendly intimacy 
than any two other Northern and Southern cities. In the days 
of the prosperity of Carolina, when her cotton plantations pro- 
duced their harvests of gold, a Northern summer was sure to 
bring to our city her fair daughters, her rich planters and distin- 
guished Statesmen; her money was scattered with a free and 
generous hand, and the pains-taking inhabitants of our city are 
the richer this day, for her careless and open-hearted liberality. 
Our green hills and fruitful vallies, our quiet lakes and pic- 
turesque scenery, the comfortable ease and independence of our 
people, were themes of never-ending praise and admiration. 
The Southerner left us as he would have left the home of his 
brother, invoking blessings upon us, taking his flight at the same 
season with the birds of passage, and in flocks almost as nu- 
merous. The Southern winter afforded him an opportunity of 
reciprocating the hospitality he had received, nor was he back- 
ward in the discharge of his obligations — he nobly redeemed at 
home the pledges he had given abroad ; his house, his table, his 
horses and servants were at the unlimited command of his North- 
ern visitor ; abolition had not then severed the tie that bound 
him to his guest ; he measured his kindness with no stinted hand. 
We can speak feelingly on the subject, for we have experienced 
the truth of the faint and unsatisfactory picture we have attempted 
to draw. Amongst all our youthful reminiscences there are none 
so strong as the warm-hearted welcome of the Southerner. The 
day has been when at the South it was recommendation enough 
for the stranger that he was a Bostonian. It is sad to reflect 
how the state of things has changed; that Massachusetts is now 
in the van-guard of those he esteems his foes ; that he meets her 
citizens not as friends in the festal hall, but as armed champions 
in the lists ; and feels that at such a meeting, as at that of the 
Southern low-lander and Scotch borderer, in former days, the 
strife must be deadly. 



21 



But it was not our intention, when we began these pages, to 
compose a dirge for the funeral of days that are gone. Our in- 
tention was merely to speak peace to the troubled waves of party, 
and throw our weight, however small, into the balance, that the 
scale of forbearance and moderation might preponderate. Neither 
is it our wish, in any way to mingle ourselves with the bitter and 
troubled waters of abolition. We have simply stated the facts, as 
we understand them, in relation to the course pursued by that 
party which is laboring so abundantly in the cause of slave eman- 
cipation. We have done so with no malice towards the party, 
and without intending to impugn their motives. We may think 
their measures rash and injurious to the safety of the country, 
and yet suppose them honest in their designs — many of them 
undoubtedly are so. It would .be strange if a party composed of 
so many adherents did not number in its ranks some whose in- 
tentions are pure and upright. We confess, however, that the 
conduct of that party at the late presidential election, has gone 
farther to shake our confidence in its disinterestedness than all 
its preceding movements. We have heretofore believed their 
designs, however unwise, were philanthropical ; but we see no 
reason now why they should not be classed amongst the political 
parties of the day, 

" Who sigh and groan, 
For public good, and mean their own." 

We can have but little hope that the remarks contained in 
these pages will be of any great public utility. We know too 
well the obstinacy of party feeling to rely with much confidence 
upon the influence of mere cool and dispassionate reasoning. 

" You may as well go stand upon the beach, 
And bid the main-flood bate his usual height," 

as try to reason down the prejudices of party. But there may 
be a few who will acquire, even from these imperfect remarks, a 
somewhat different view of the questions which have recently 
arisen between Massachusetts and South Carolina; and if we 
can, in any way, check the downward rush of the mighty wheels 
which have been so unhappily set in motion, our object will be 
answered. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



014 418 462 2 ( 



